Obama Signs Bill Extending Patriot Act Provisions for Four Years

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:07:39 PM EST
Tags: Patriot Act (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: President Obama signed the Patriot Act bill from France with his auto-pen.

Update: House passes Senate bill, 250 to 153.

The Senate today, by a vote of 72 - 23, approved the extension of the Patriot Act's provisions on roving wiretaps, access to business records and "lone wolf" surveillance. The House is debating now and will hold a vote imminently.You can watch the debate here. President Obama will be woken up at 5:45 a.m. tomorrow to sign it.

[More...]

The measure would add four years to the legal life of roving wiretaps - those authorized for a person rather than a communications line or device - of court-ordered searches of business records and of surveillance of non-American "lone wolf" suspects without confirmed ties to terrorist groups.

Here's the Senate roll call vote. Thanks to Colorado Senator Mark Udall for voting against the bill. House updates here. The bill is S.90 and the vote to approve the Senate bill, S. 990, is H.Res. 281.

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the bill ( S. 990) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes

Via CNN:

One of the three provisions, Section 206 of the Patriot Act, provides for roving wiretap surveillance of targets who try to thwart Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance. Without such roving wiretap authority, investigators would be forced to seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, phone or computer that needs to be monitored.
Another provision, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, allows the FBI to apply to the FISA court to issue orders granting the government access to any tangible items in foreign intelligence, international terrorism and clandestine intelligence cases.
The third provision, Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004, closes a loophole that could allow individual terrorists not affiliated with specific organizations to slip through the cracks of FISA surveillance. Law enforcement officials refer to it as the "lone wolf" provision.

< Dominique Strauss-Kahn's Lawyers Complain to DA About Leaks | Pakistan Tells U.S. to Shut Down Fusion Cells >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Obama Signs Bill Extending Patriot Act Provisions for Four Years | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

nice to know the democrats (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by cpinva on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:40:17 PM EST

are looking out for my civil rights. not.

neither are the Republicans (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:47:01 PM EST

: The SEP does (none / 0) (#13)
by Andreas on Thu May 26, 2011 at 11:39:00 PM EST

The Socialist Equality Party does - since 2001.

: No one expected them to (none / 0) (#23)
by jbindc on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:12:07 PM EST

This just makes me feel sick. (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Anne on Thu May 26, 2011 at 08:51:56 PM EST

I would venture to guess that almost no one knows or understands what the Congress has passed, or how the administration is using it.

From Mark Udall's speech:

For example, currently, the intelligence community can (1) place wide-ranging wiretaps on Americans without even identifying the target or location of such surveillance, (2) target individuals who have no connection to terrorist organizations, and (3) collect business records on law-abiding Americans, without any connection to terrorism. We ought to be able to at least agree that the source of an investigation under PATRIOT Act powers should have a terrorist-related focus. If we can't limit investigations to terrorism, where do they end? Is there no amount of information that our government can collect that should be off limits? I know Coloradans are demanding that we at least place common-sense limits on government investigations and link data collection to terrorist-related activities.
If Congress passes this bill to extend the PATRIOT Act until 2015, it would mean that for four more years, the federal government will continue to have unrestrained access to private information about Americans who have no connection to terrorism - with little to no accountability about how these powers are used. Again, we all agree the intelligence community needs effective tools to combat terrorism, but we must provide those tools in a way that protects the constitutional freedoms of our people and lives up to the standard of transparency that democracy demands.
[snip]
Finally, I was joined by Senator Wyden in filing an amendment designed to narrow the scope of "business record" materials that can be collected under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. This amendment would still allow law enforcement agencies to use the PATRIOT Act to obtain such records, but would require those entities to demonstrate that the records are in some way connected to terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
Law enforcement currently can obtain any kind of records. In fact, the PATRIOT Act's only limitation states that such information has to be related to "any tangible thing." That's right - as long as these business records are related to "any tangible thing," the U.S. government can require businesses to turn over information on all of their customers, whether or not there is any link to terrorism. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask our law enforcement agencies to identify a terrorism investigation before seizing the private information of law-abiding American citizens.

I don't know - this doesn't sound like the actions of a democracy to me, and it saddens - and frightens - me beyond belief that by agreement, it was decided that these kinds of provisions weren't deserving of any substantive debate.

Why do we even need a Congress when apparently the one we have just wants to rubber stamp whatever the current occupant of the Oval Office wants to do?

: Well, a few of (none / 0) (#6)
by JamesTX on Thu May 26, 2011 at 09:06:07 PM EST

us know, and a few us have never quite understood this:

...(2) target individuals who have no connection to terrorist organizations, and (3) collect business records on law-abiding Americans, without any connection to terrorism. We ought to be able to at least agree that the source of an investigation under PATRIOT Act powers should have a terrorist-related focus. If we can't limit investigations to terrorism, where do they end?

Exactly why can't anyone explain exactly why they need powers which are clearly prohibited by the constitution without showing the connection to terrorism?

Point of no return (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by mmc9431 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 09:06:04 PM EST

Once power is given, it becomes almost impossible to take it back.

The American people have given away their civil liberties for a sense of security that will continue to be abused by the people in power.

Within the next few years we'll be told by the "tough on crime" crowd that these provisions need to be implemented in regular law enforcesment.

Sadly I don't think they'll meet with much opposition.

: My impression was (none / 0) (#10)
by JamesTX on Thu May 26, 2011 at 10:37:16 PM EST

that the law already allows that. There is nothing that requires the person being investigated to be connected to terrorism, and as far as I remember from the original Patriot Act, the idea that they should be prohibited from using the evidence obtained in those investigations in routine criminal prosecutions fell on deaf ears. The evidence obtained in those investigations can be used in "a cause" by the government -- not "the cause".

"They who can give up (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Zorba on Fri May 27, 2011 at 06:44:50 AM EST

essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

: Too bad the decision about surrendering (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Anne on Fri May 27, 2011 at 07:05:16 AM EST

liberties is left to some 535 members of Congress - and the president - who have shown repeatedly that they do not have our best interests at heart.
This is all about power - acquiring it, using it and, eventually, abusing it - and it makes me mad enough to spit.

Credit where due to Rand Paul... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by kdog on Fri May 27, 2011 at 08:47:43 AM EST

for his dare I say elegant defense of the constitutional protections the majority of our leaders just shat all over (again) during the floor debate.

Liberty has so few friends...maybe I was a little hard on Rand, he's not a total piker libertarian, only semi-piker.

: Really disappointing no Dems (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by ruffian on Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:31:27 AM EST

joined him. Not surprising, but disappointing.

J, your link to the roll call vote (none / 0) (#3)
by caseyOR on Thu May 26, 2011 at 08:09:17 PM EST

does not lead to the vote.

I think it does (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 26, 2011 at 09:20:55 PM EST

this one, 74 to 23 vote. Why do you think it's not it.


Because (none / 0) (#9)
by cal1942 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 10:35:06 PM EST

this is the content of the link.

Measure Number: S. 990 (Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011 )
Measure Title: A bill to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.


: they are the same, here's the (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Jeralyn on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:06:59 AM EST

explanation of how Harry Reid used the business bill to include the Patriot Act Extension bill.

: I get the same Small Business, etc. (none / 0) (#11)
by caseyOR on Thu May 26, 2011 at 10:48:07 PM EST

at that link, Jeralyn. It does not lead to the roll call vote on the Patriot Act.

Tester voted "nay." (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Thu May 26, 2011 at 10:31:54 PM EST

Both Boxer and Feinstein voted "Ay." Surprising.

: Tester campaigned on (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by MO Blue on Fri May 27, 2011 at 08:24:00 AM EST

wanting to repeal the Patriot Act.

On September 23, 2006, during a debate with Senator-expelled Conrad Burns in Butte, MT, Burns said the following about Mr. Tester, as written in The
Great Falls Tribune, ...
"He [Tester] wants to weaken the Patriot Act,"
How did Tester react? This is how he reacted...
Great Falls Tribune,
"I [Tester] don't want to weaken the Patriot Act, I want to repeal it. What it does, it takes away your freedom ... and when you take away our freedoms, the terrorists have won,"
While I haven't agreed with many of Tester's other votes, he has remained consistent on being against the Patriot Act.

: Surprising.... (none / 0) (#18)
by Rojas on Fri May 27, 2011 at 07:51:11 AM EST

not in the slightest...
Send 'em your cash

: Plenty of high tech surveillance (none / 0) (#22)
by ruffian on Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:32:16 AM EST

money goes to CA, I would imagine.

I am beyond shocked (none / 0) (#12)
by jen on Thu May 26, 2011 at 11:02:48 PM EST

that my new "R" Senator here in NV voted Nay!! Heller was my Rep before Gov. Sandoval appointed him to replace Ensign. I rarely agreed with any of his votes as a Congressman, and now, on one of his first votes as a Senator I actually wrote and thanked him. My other senator, the majority leader, blocked Rand Paul's filibuster, went with the fear factor, and voted Yea. :(

I think it is to serve a purpose: (none / 0) (#24)
by Madeline on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:40:15 PM EST

keep citizens fearful of their government. Why? With the economy tanked and no relief in site, my belief is that they are fearful that people might actually get fed up and so something, like Greece, Spain, England or Bless Iceland, they succeeded.

I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory or paranoid but I think they are afraid of us.

: My guess is that the (none / 0) (#26)
by KeysDan on Fri May 27, 2011 at 01:24:27 PM EST

Wisconsin protests gave bipartisan pause.

This just (none / 0) (#25)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 01:03:47 PM EST

shows how stupid the cons are to be worshiping Ayn Rand. They should be reading Orwell. It's the eternal war for eternal peace.